Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
C.S. MUTHALAGU - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - Respondent
W.P. No. 7438 of 2015; Miscellaneous Petition No. 1, 2 of 2015
Decided on : 09-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Madhuri Donti Reddy, Adv., R.S. Selvam, Adv.
Judicial review against a charge memo should be exercised cautiously, and a charge sheet should not be challenged unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.
Headnote:
Charge Memo - Challenge - TNCS (C&A) Rules 1955 - Rule 17(b) - Police Standing Order 80(2)(b) - Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Chief office memo Rc.No.183374/Crime II(2)/2012 dated 07.01.2013 - Judicial Review - Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 357 - Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [Civil Appeal No.2333 of 2007, Decided on May 29, 2012] - Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a police officer, challenged a charge memo issued against him under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (C&A) Rules 1955, alleging delay in initiation of charges and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo was issued based on recommendations of the CBCID and that the writ petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of incompetence of the issuing authority. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Issues: Delay in initiation of charges, violation of principles of natural justice, competence of the issuing authority
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review against the charge memo should be exercised cautiously and interference is only allowed if charges are contrary to law. The court also emphasized that a charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party and should not be challenged unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
1. The charge memo dated 26.01.2015 issued under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (C&A) Rules 1955, dated 26.01.2015 by the second respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police through direct recruitment in the year 1987. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from July 2010. On account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 26.01.2015. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:
IMAGE
3. Annexure-2 to the charge memo provide the statements of allegations and imputations and Annexure-3 provides the list of documents relied upon by the authorities. Annexure-4 provides the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner.
4. The present writ petition is filed on the ground that there is a delay in initiation of charges and the writ petitioner has not been given an opportunity to explain his case before the authorities competent and therefore, the principles of natural justice has been violated. Though, it is stated that the second respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the charge memo, the same has not been substantiated with reference to the Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per the Discipline and Appeal Rules, it is not necessary that the disciplinary authorities who is competent to impose punishment should frame the charges. The superior authority to the delinquent is empowered to place an employee under suspension and can frame the charges. The only requirement is that a final order in the disciplinary proceedings must be passed by the disciplinary authorities, as specified in the Rules. Thus, the very ground raised in this regard by the writ petitioner deserves no merit consideration. The writ petitioner in stead of submitting an explanation with reference to the allegations set out in the charge memo, has chosen to file the present writ petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents informed this Court that the charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner based on the recommendations of the CBCID which investigated the cases as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The petitioner has a part to play in the Criminal case i.e., failing to investigate the case and filed charge sheet hurriedly to help the family of the deceased to claim false insurance compensation. This being the allegations based on the recommendations of the CBCID, the charge memo was framed against the writ petitioner. It is stated that accordingly to Police stating Order 80(2)(b) volume I, it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award a penalty or even that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority. The charges can be framed and the enquiry held by any officer acting under the orders of the authority competent to award the penalty. Further, the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Chief office memo Rc.No.183374/Crime II(2)/2012 dated 07.01.2013 has authorized the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range to approve the charge memo. Thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice or the Rules in force.
6. This being the serious allegations framed against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner has to participate in the process of enquiry to establish his innocence or otherwise by producing documents or by adducing evidences.
7. A charge memo can be challenged on the limited grounds and the judicial review against the charge memo is to be exercised cautiously. The writ petition against the charge memo can be entertained, if the same has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of malafides are raised or if th
